If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 03:36:08 +0000, Alexander Grigoriev wrote:
"Henry Nettles" noone@nowhere wrote in message ... Looking back on it all now, it still seems to me that the PS/2 was the biggest fiasco of the entire computer revolution. I used OS/2 for a while, and I still think OS/2 was better than Windows 95. But the PS/2, now that was a fiasco from beginning to end. Their legacy is only in "PS/2" mouse interface and keyboard connectors. Yeah, no one really needed bullet-proof desktops and plug-n-play. Reliability? Who wants that?! -- Keith |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
"Keith" wrote in message news On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:17:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:06:45 -0600, "Del Cecchi" wrote: "George Macdonald" wrote in message ... On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:10:29 GMT, Robert Redelmeier wrote: EdG wrote in part: Well .... I didn't buy my two AMD64's for their 64-bit, it was basically icing on the cake, Sorta like the 386s? I consider the uptake of AMD64 to be nothing short of phenomenal in comparison. In a far more entrenched and less geeky market, we have day one OSes and a remarkable amount of support. Even from the known laggard, MS. IIRC the 386 had to wait 5 years for runnable OSes (IIRC, OS/2 v2 and non-beta Linux). Apps followed, and will this time too. There *were* the 386 DOS Extenders and Desqview386 which was a very solid multitasking environment, long before Windows 3.0 came along or was even worth looking at. With a coupla nudges here & there, things could have turned out very differently. In the corporate market, the IBM/M$ "promise" of OS/2 V1 had a serious effect in slowing down 32-bit Protected Mode uptake. I'm sure we still have the "notices" from our big clients warning us of the requirements for OS/2 V1 versions of our software to fit their scheduled transition; fortunately we ignored them... never happened. I'd attended the OS/2 V1 dog 'n' pony show in NYC and I was not impressed... though it did take some serious "discussions" with our guys "out in the trenches" to stay away from it. Besides, Phar Lap's DOS Extender was so simple and DesqView386 was no effort at all - it just worked. -- Rgds, George Macdonald I'm sure you recall that OS/2 was supposed to do all that stuff while running on a 286 PC/AT. Yeah well that was the big mistake. Back then even Intel took the stance that the 386 was only for those "who really needed it" - they thought the same with 486... and even had a slew of 386 support chips still in the pipeline when 486 came out. It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight. 90% of the systems being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400 Dells. Sure, I understood why they did it. But it was late apparently and also gave microsoft a perfect way to (call it what you will) IBM with Windows .. And there was a story that OS/2 had a lot of 286 assembler in it and so didn't move to 386 readily. And IBM's pay more to get more regardless of whether cost was more pricing policy didn't help matters. I watched it all with a sort of sick fascination, like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Ben Rosen and his buddies should have sent roses and chocolate to Akers on Valentine's day. del cecchi snip -- Keith |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
YKhanwrote:
Adorable little Ed Stroglio rant: Hatching Eggs . . . "Remember x86-64? The stick AMD was supposed to beat Intel to death with? Then Intel got themselves the same stick, and the would-be beaters found something else to talk about. Yes, AMD is doing better now, but not because of x86-64. Indeed, AMD's increased fortunes have come well after Intel switched. Microsoft came out with a Windows XP for x86-64, but the world hasn't exactly stampeded to get it." http://www.overclockers.com/tips00910/ I always thought the reason nobody flocked to XP x64 was because Microsoft delayed and delayed so much to let Intel catch up that people lost interest in it? I mean you know Microsoft was delaying here, even Solaris 10 came out for x64 before Windows did, despite starting work on it 2 years later. Yousuf Khan Yes, good article and that's the reason I never made the switch. I'm still using my XP-3200 400. It still has quite a bit of wow factor. When I upgrade, what I'm upgrading too, has to wow me from what I'm leaving. I've not seen anything since my 3200 that has. But I do disagree with the author. AMD's Athlon 64 was a large factor in it's success today. Why? Because the market finally saw Intel for what it was. Obsolete, and the talk started. As AMD kept going, Intel had to play catch up without any new innovation of their own. As they caught up, AMD just left them in the dust again. And again. Once AMD earned "gaming" rights, the writing was on the wall. Gaming is what moves the industry and why innovation happens at all. But, that Intel negative talk, started by the 64, automatically means more market share to AMD; anyway you slice or dice it. Now, AMD has taken on Intel in a full scale frontal assault. From servers to notebooks to lawsuits; they're not considered fringe anymore and they are looked at as the market leader of tech. Not because of size, not because of sales; because of innovation. It is now seen to be the only one that has it. That in turn, means even more marketshare. AMD being viable began with the Athlon Thunderbird. The 64 made them clearly the innovator, Windows or not. And the result? Intel just missed it numbers. I've been predicting just this sort of thing for a few years now. Get used to it you Intel lovers out there. All that said; I never fell for the 64 hype. Especially with no Windows available to properly run it. And, in all fairness, Windows 64 bit right now, leaves plenty to want. Especially in the area of available drivers. Most, still don't have those. What's the point? That's why there's no stampede to it. I remember all the problems XP caused when it first came out. Drivers were the issue then as well. Will Vista have a full assortment of drivers available to it? I doubt it. If it does, then why doesn't XP 64 have them now? Today, the only real difference between the XP-3200 and the Athlon 64 is a small increase in 32 bit performance due to the onboard memory bus. That's hardly wowing. My next upgrade will be to dual core, AFTER Vista comes out, and hopefully, AFTER someone starts writing a lot of 64 bit software code. Although, to be fair, dual core has much more wow impact now, then 64 does. And look at the headstart 64 had. The XP-3200 was the last great thing to come down the pike. Everything else, has, and will continue to be, "waiting for the eggs to hatch." I'm still waiting... Luckily, I didn't waste three complete platforms in the wait. And, my "ancient" 3200 has no problem running a full McAfee scan, and me working on other things at the same time. The only wow factor I've seen come out of the PC business, for quite some time, is video. SLI has it. It's a sad state of affairs when Nvidia is the only one delivering wow factor that's significant and tangable for every day use. Their software engineers seem to keep up without a problem. What makes them different? Whatever it is, they sure smoked the hell out of ATI. Cross Fire, like the new Intel dual core, isn't even close. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:17:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:06:45 -0600, "Del Cecchi" wrote: "George Macdonald" wrote in message ... On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:10:29 GMT, Robert Redelmeier wrote: EdG wrote in part: Well .... I didn't buy my two AMD64's for their 64-bit, it was basically icing on the cake, Sorta like the 386s? I consider the uptake of AMD64 to be nothing short of phenomenal in comparison. In a far more entrenched and less geeky market, we have day one OSes and a remarkable amount of support. Even from the known laggard, MS. IIRC the 386 had to wait 5 years for runnable OSes (IIRC, OS/2 v2 and non-beta Linux). Apps followed, and will this time too. There *were* the 386 DOS Extenders and Desqview386 which was a very solid multitasking environment, long before Windows 3.0 came along or was even worth looking at. With a coupla nudges here & there, things could have turned out very differently. In the corporate market, the IBM/M$ "promise" of OS/2 V1 had a serious effect in slowing down 32-bit Protected Mode uptake. I'm sure we still have the "notices" from our big clients warning us of the requirements for OS/2 V1 versions of our software to fit their scheduled transition; fortunately we ignored them... never happened. I'd attended the OS/2 V1 dog 'n' pony show in NYC and I was not impressed... though it did take some serious "discussions" with our guys "out in the trenches" to stay away from it. Besides, Phar Lap's DOS Extender was so simple and DesqView386 was no effort at all - it just worked. -- Rgds, George Macdonald I'm sure you recall that OS/2 was supposed to do all that stuff while running on a 286 PC/AT. Yeah well that was the big mistake. Back then even Intel took the stance that the 386 was only for those "who really needed it" - they thought the same with 486... and even had a slew of 386 support chips still in the pipeline when 486 came out. It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight. Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system" was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was nuts. 90% of the systems being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400 Dells. In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286 systems really still commanding 90% of the general market? I don't recall but it had no interest at all for me... 3 years after the arrival of 80386. But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory model - that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A lot of mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender. Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point. Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented memory model it was a big deal. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:26:37 -0600, Del Cecchi wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message news On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:17:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:06:45 -0600, "Del Cecchi" wrote: "George Macdonald" wrote in message ... On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:10:29 GMT, Robert Redelmeier wrote: EdG wrote in part: Well .... I didn't buy my two AMD64's for their 64-bit, it was basically icing on the cake, Sorta like the 386s? I consider the uptake of AMD64 to be nothing short of phenomenal in comparison. In a far more entrenched and less geeky market, we have day one OSes and a remarkable amount of support. Even from the known laggard, MS. IIRC the 386 had to wait 5 years for runnable OSes (IIRC, OS/2 v2 and non-beta Linux). Apps followed, and will this time too. There *were* the 386 DOS Extenders and Desqview386 which was a very solid multitasking environment, long before Windows 3.0 came along or was even worth looking at. With a coupla nudges here & there, things could have turned out very differently. In the corporate market, the IBM/M$ "promise" of OS/2 V1 had a serious effect in slowing down 32-bit Protected Mode uptake. I'm sure we still have the "notices" from our big clients warning us of the requirements for OS/2 V1 versions of our software to fit their scheduled transition; fortunately we ignored them... never happened. I'd attended the OS/2 V1 dog 'n' pony show in NYC and I was not impressed... though it did take some serious "discussions" with our guys "out in the trenches" to stay away from it. Besides, Phar Lap's DOS Extender was so simple and DesqView386 was no effort at all - it just worked. -- Rgds, George Macdonald I'm sure you recall that OS/2 was supposed to do all that stuff while running on a 286 PC/AT. Yeah well that was the big mistake. Back then even Intel took the stance that the 386 was only for those "who really needed it" - they thought the same with 486... and even had a slew of 386 support chips still in the pipeline when 486 came out. It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight. 90% of the systems being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400 Dells. Sure, I understood why they did it. But it was late apparently and also gave microsoft a perfect way to (call it what you will) IBM with Windows . The 286/386 decision with OS/2 V1 had nothing to do with Windows winning the desktop. Windows won with Win3.11 (which was still 286) and Win95 because IBM folded their tent on OS/2 V3. Even OS/2 V1.3 was a better DOS than DOS. And there was a story that OS/2 had a lot of 286 assembler in it and so didn't move to 386 readily. Um, 286 code runs perfectly well on 386s. Warp crushed Windows technically, but where was the mindshare? Remember the commercials that promised to make us all "wobbly in the knees"? No, I don't either. And IBM's pay more to get more regardless of whether cost was more pricing policy didn't help matters. Remember what the 'B' stands for. The purpose of the PS/2 was to bring some sense to the PC. PS/2s and OS/2 had working plug-n-play. How long did it take M$ to catch up. I watched it all with a sort of sick fascination, like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Perhaps, but the problem wasn't supporting 286s with OS/2 V1.0 nor the PS/2 itself. Ben Rosen and his buddies should have sent roses and chocolate to Akers on Valentine's day. I'd have suggested something else... -- Keith |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:31:25 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:17:04 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:06:45 -0600, "Del Cecchi" wrote: "George Macdonald" wrote in message ... On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:10:29 GMT, Robert Redelmeier wrote: EdG wrote in part: Well .... I didn't buy my two AMD64's for their 64-bit, it was basically icing on the cake, Sorta like the 386s? I consider the uptake of AMD64 to be nothing short of phenomenal in comparison. In a far more entrenched and less geeky market, we have day one OSes and a remarkable amount of support. Even from the known laggard, MS. IIRC the 386 had to wait 5 years for runnable OSes (IIRC, OS/2 v2 and non-beta Linux). Apps followed, and will this time too. There *were* the 386 DOS Extenders and Desqview386 which was a very solid multitasking environment, long before Windows 3.0 came along or was even worth looking at. With a coupla nudges here & there, things could have turned out very differently. In the corporate market, the IBM/M$ "promise" of OS/2 V1 had a serious effect in slowing down 32-bit Protected Mode uptake. I'm sure we still have the "notices" from our big clients warning us of the requirements for OS/2 V1 versions of our software to fit their scheduled transition; fortunately we ignored them... never happened. I'd attended the OS/2 V1 dog 'n' pony show in NYC and I was not impressed... though it did take some serious "discussions" with our guys "out in the trenches" to stay away from it. Besides, Phar Lap's DOS Extender was so simple and DesqView386 was no effort at all - it just worked. -- Rgds, George Macdonald I'm sure you recall that OS/2 was supposed to do all that stuff while running on a 286 PC/AT. Yeah well that was the big mistake. Back then even Intel took the stance that the 386 was only for those "who really needed it" - they thought the same with 486... and even had a slew of 386 support chips still in the pipeline when 486 came out. It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight. Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system" was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was nuts. ....and abandon customers who bought systems last year and a large fraction of the systems to be shipped this year and next? That's not how International *BUSINESS* Machines operated. Do note that Warp3 shipped with full 386 capability long before Windows 95. There was no comparison between the two. 90% of the systems being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400 Dells. In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286 systems really still commanding 90% of the general market? Yes. The 386s were expensive, and IIRC not avalilable in large quantities. I don't recall but it had no interest at all for me... 3 years after the arrival of 80386. Three years? Were 386s available in 1984? OS/2 V1 was released in April of 1987. But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory model - that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A lot of mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender. Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point. Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented memory model it was a big deal. So, you thought Windows was somehow better, in 1987? OS/2 V2 was released in 1992 and supported the 386 fully. -- Keith |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:04:33 -0500, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:31:25 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith wrote: It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight. Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system" was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was nuts. ...and abandon customers who bought systems last year and a large fraction of the systems to be shipped this year and next? That's not how International *BUSINESS* Machines operated. Do note that Warp3 shipped with full 386 capability long before Windows 95. There was no comparison between the two. Hmm, it may have been IBM's intention to "impose" a replacement of DOS by OS/2 on all the existing systems in their large corporate customers; in fact from what we heard from large customers that seemed to be indicated.... but that's not how the PC market worked back then. Even now not many people change OS from that delivered with the machine. 90% of the systems being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400 Dells. In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286 systems really still commanding 90% of the general market? Yes. The 386s were expensive, and IIRC not avalilable in large quantities. I had no trouble getting them - in fact even early versions of 386 with the "16-bit only" and paging bugs.:-) I don't recall but it had no interest at all for me... 3 years after the arrival of 80386. Three years? Were 386s available in 1984? OS/2 V1 was released in April of 1987. Well it was announced in April '87 - don't recall actual general availability but after attending the tech conference (nice mug they handed out... still have it) in NYC we had no interest anyway. But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory model - that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A lot of mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender. Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point. Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented memory model it was a big deal. So, you thought Windows was somehow better, in 1987? OS/2 V2 was released in 1992 and supported the 386 fully. No, in fact we had unopened Windows boxes lying around at the time - no interest at all, since it didn't know anything of 386 Protected Mode. The Phar Lap 32-bit code ran just fine under DesqView386. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:17:09 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:04:33 -0500, Keith wrote: On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:31:25 -0500, George Macdonald wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:48:32 -0500, Keith wrote: It can only be taken as a "big mistake" in hindsight. Depends on your perspective - I'm sure I could be classed as biased but it was a monumental mistake from my POV. The IBM/M$ "future operating system" was first announced in the same year as 80386 - to me building a new operating system which ignored the revolutionary aspects of the new CPU was nuts. ...and abandon customers who bought systems last year and a large fraction of the systems to be shipped this year and next? That's not how International *BUSINESS* Machines operated. Do note that Warp3 shipped with full 386 capability long before Windows 95. There was no comparison between the two. Hmm, it may have been IBM's intention to "impose" a replacement of DOS by OS/2 on all the existing systems in their large corporate customers; in fact from what we heard from large customers that seemed to be indicated.... but that's not how the PC market worked back then. Even now not many people change OS from that delivered with the machine. You are correct, but *applications* that were developed for yesterday's machine *must* work on todays. That wass the point of "better DOS than DOS". Indeed OS/2 V1.3 (which M$ had nothing to do with, like DOS7) was better DOS than DOS. Warp3 was better Windows than Windows, until API shifting. 90% of the systems being shipped were 286's and the installed base was huge. ...forgetting that the '386 was expensive. Dell, you more than most, know that IBM is all about protecting customer's investments. These systems weren't $400 Dells. In 1988, which was about OS/2 V1's delivery timeframe, were 286 systems really still commanding 90% of the general market? Yes. The 386s were expensive, and IIRC not avalilable in large quantities. I had no trouble getting them - in fact even early versions of 386 with the "16-bit only" and paging bugs.:-) Of course *you* didn't. Try buying a hundred thousand of 'em to satisy your customers (then give them the bill). I don't recall but it had no interest at all for me... 3 years after the arrival of 80386. Three years? Were 386s available in 1984? OS/2 V1 was released in April of 1987. Well it was announced in April '87 - don't recall actual general availability but after attending the tech conference (nice mug they handed out... still have it) in NYC we had no interest anyway. Sheesh! It was available on its release date. Are you telling be that you couldn't get a copy for *three* years? Perhaps your last phrase says it all. Tell me, were you happy with Win95? But "all that stuff" I mentioned included the 32-bit flat memory model - that was the killer for doing real computing on a desktop. A lot of mainframe code got converted to Phar Lap's DOS Extender. Wunnerful, but that's hardly the point. Again, perspective. For people who felt hog-tied by the segmented memory model it was a big deal. So, you thought Windows was somehow better, in 1987? OS/2 V2 was released in 1992 and supported the 386 fully. No, in fact we had unopened Windows boxes lying around at the time - no interest at all, since it didn't know anything of 386 Protected Mode. The Phar Lap 32-bit code ran just fine under DesqView386. So did OS/2, though you had already decided that you weren't interested. *THAT* was OS/2's problem. No one cared that it was elegant and just *worked*. IBM didn't care enough that the let it die from neglect. Too bad, Billy won by default. Too bad indeed. -- Keith |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
They shot themselves in a foot with their proprietary MCI bus. Good or bad
it was, MCI is dead and PS2 mices and KB are being quietly replaced by USB. "Keith" wrote in message news On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 03:36:08 +0000, Alexander Grigoriev wrote: "Henry Nettles" noone@nowhere wrote in message ... Looking back on it all now, it still seems to me that the PS/2 was the biggest fiasco of the entire computer revolution. I used OS/2 for a while, and I still think OS/2 was better than Windows 95. But the PS/2, now that was a fiasco from beginning to end. Their legacy is only in "PS/2" mouse interface and keyboard connectors. Yeah, no one really needed bullet-proof desktops and plug-n-play. Reliability? Who wants that?! -- Keith |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever happened to x86-64?
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 05:01:16 +0000, Alexander Grigoriev wrote:
They shot themselves in a foot with their proprietary MCI bus. Good or bad it was, MCI is dead and PS2 mices and KB are being quietly replaced by USB. MCA was a good thing, considering IBM's customers (remember, MCI PnP worked) and how poorly ISA worked. The politics of MCA weren't what most people think. MCA was openly licensed and for small money. Control was what the anti-MCA thing was all about. MCA had it all over every other attempt at a bus until PCI (controlled by Intel, which was somehow a good thing). Even PCI had severe growing pains. PS/2 mouses and keyboards have been around for 20 years and will be around for a good while yet. That's not so bad, given how technology moves. Not that PS/2 ports were much to write home about anyway (just a form factor change from the AT keyboard connector taht's a quarter century old). I'd rather not go to USB for such things (what gain?). USB is just too complicated for such a simple thing as a mechanical human interface. I'll keep my Model-Ms, thanks anyway. -- Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Happened to the 1905 LCD Monitors? | M and D | Dell Computers | 0 | December 15th 05 04:41 AM |
what happened to onstream? | Andrew Crook | Storage (alternative) | 3 | October 10th 04 10:57 AM |
What happened ? | Nat Sass | Asus Motherboards | 3 | October 6th 04 11:06 AM |
What's happened to BTX | AJ | Intel | 0 | September 20th 04 05:22 AM |
What happened? | Daniel P | Homebuilt PC's | 14 | May 7th 04 07:08 PM |